nevynosynij

I am surprised at the scale of modern censorship in supposedly democratic countries, that every day there is a new ban, a new cancel (ostracism), a new call to court for a tweet. This is a clear sign of regression, it is a factor in the degradation of society, culture, and man.

Anti-Ableism

This is one of the modern censorship initiatives, which has the “good intentions” that usually pave the way to hell: to protect vulnerable people from abuse, such as the deaf and blind, hysterics, morons, idiots, autistics, schizophrenics, disabled people, epileptics, etc. If you have caught the essence of the selection, then you will understand that this list is very long and you will be able to estimate the scale of censorship: anti-ableism forbid the use of words related to the selected category of disorders, diseases, mutilations, etc. That is, you cannot say “deaf” or “blind” in order not to receive a fine. Some owners of Internet sites, chats, communities, and forums add Abelo banwords to the black-list, and if your message contains a banword, you will automatically be muted or banned; if you try to bypass the filter by adding, for example, similar symbols (“id10t”), the moderators will most certainly ban you manually and update the list of banwords with a new variation.

Let’s figure it out. First, no one has the right to limit freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the constitution. Secondly, “ableism” is an artificial concept, this is extremely important! Woke’s political correctors invent a crime where there is none, they invented a special subcategory in blaming for the words they chose and called it “ableism”, and then attacked everyone who uses “censored” words. This is a typical feature of the Soviet censors: under invented pretexts to put up obstacles, to repress; in the ruzzia today you can pay for the blue and yellow colors in your clothes, for the word “peace”, for a rainbow… Thirdly, such censors always bypass meanings, for them form is more important. After all, words usually have several meanings, “deaf” is not only a man with limited or absent hearing, it is also a person who does not know how to or does not want to listen. Fourth, there is a fundamental difference between blaming someone who is actually deaf on the basis of their disability, and calling someone who is not deaf — deaf. Compare: “Haha! You are deaf and do not hear what I say!” — it is impolite and unacceptable; “my advice falls on deaf ears” is a linguistic allegorical sigh, an acceptable criticism. It turns out that many people do not understand this obviousness… But I do not believe that the initiators do not understand this, I am sure that this is simply a censorship order to strengthen senseless political correctness within the framework of the global construction of a “bright future” in the wonderful rays of something like Blue Beam, i.e. hyperreality. If you follow this path, then the opposite definitions should also be censored: “smart”, “genius”, because it offends people with a low IQ, “skinny”, because fat people are offended, “handsome”, because it affects the unsophisticated, it is impossible to say “strong” so as not to offend the weak. And you can’t talk at all, because it will offend the mute or deaf. This is absurd.

Anti-ebolism is not self-sufficient, it is part of a larger mechanism of suppression of self-expression, suppression of free-thinking, suppression of freedoms.

As you can see, anti-Ebleuism not only violates the constitution, but is also illiterate, accordingly, those who use its principles: criminals and ignoramuses.

I will tell a real story from Discord, where on one server this summer (2024) admins suddenly decided to introduce an anti-Able “order” and updated the list of stop-words, in particular, “autist”. This is a story about how such actions harm those whom they are supposed to protect. The innovation provoked a controversy, now no one in the chat could write the word “autist”, for this you received automute for 10 minutes, but the restrictions did not affect the moderators, and one of the administrators in the middle of a verbal spat shouted: “I am autistic”, that is, he demonstratively (and with impunity) wrote the forbidden word “autist”, then clarified that he actually has “autistic spectrum disorder”. It outraged me to the extreme, since I am also autistic, but I can’t say about it now! Before the event, I wasn’t going to tell anyone about it, why? When you go to school-class, you don’t tell everyone about your disorders and illnesses, do you? It is appropriate (and right) to remain silent about such things, it is cultural: not to stress those around you with your problems, to talk about your illnesses with the general public is a bad thing, you should do this face to face with your doctor. So, as soon as I voiced my dissatisfaction with the fact that now only the “elite” has the right to express themselves freely, and noted that I (not only the admin) a _ u _ t _ i _ s _ t _ i _ c, but to talk about it (unlike the admin) I can’t because of the automod… I was permabaned instantly 😄 Paradox: the rules that were supposed to protect autistic people shut their mouths and repressed them.

Until I was kicked out, I managed to make an interesting observation that reveals the motivation of the administrators to implement these idiotic rules: one of them slandered that this was necessary for “education, you cattle”, I pointed to the educated one at “cattle”, he apologized, but the main word here is “education”, it means that these people see themselves as educators. Now we extrapolate this local episode into the global field, and we will see the true purpose of such trends: to educate uncouth barbarians. One question: are you barbarians and did you sign up for parenting lessons? And what is education? — incited to violate the constitution? In messy, senseless self-censorship? In the primitivization of vocabulary? This is not education, gentlemen, but debilitation, similar to the infamous “education of the Soviet man.” The Soviets also rejected ratio in a stupid desire to educate, breed, give birth to homo soveticus: a condo communist who would have an innate immunity to common sense.

Anti-Eubsianism has no reason to exist in the field of communication ethics. It’s just a despotic restriction that turns a series of allegories into silly n-words.

This case shows how anti-Ablablaism silences those who really have some problems. Anti-Abebelism clears the information field from you if you are, for example, autistic. This is a clear example of discrimination, when the rights of vulnerable groups and the general right to freedom of speech are reduced. Anti-Eybueism is linguistic Nazism, it promotes a superior race of “pure (from blaming) words” and suffocates dissenters in ban cells. The word “anti-Ablashitism” should become a synonym for “hypocrisy”, because anti-Abelists advocate the protection of autistic people, and oppress them.

Non-binary dictionaries

Anti-abluvomitism is not something original, special, it is a link of blunt, crude censorship of the word. It is joined by censors from among the LGBT+ people, who always do not like how are said about them in public space. Their effort to protect non-binary persons led to the editing of explanatory dictionaries, at least in the English language, where the word ‘they’ (plural “they”) was assigned a new singular meaning: “they” (‘singular they’), which is not only illiteracy, but also bad taste. I don’t understand why it was necessary to distort a normal word, why not come up with a new one? For example thi(t): they+it. If you are not in the topic: a non-binary person does not want to be either “he” or “she”, he chooses the neuter pronoun, the problem is that in English there is no neuter pronoun for naming people. But the presence of no pronoun does not guarantee the compatibility of non-binary, because nouns do not have a neuter form. So this non-binary word-game is just for fun, don’t take it public with bans.

By the way, editing dictionaries is a precedent that should encourage to backup sensitive, important information that can be changed online.

I respect all people and understand their choice, if someone wants to be non-binary and prefers to be addressed by “they”,— no problem! Without irony: I will gladly address such a person as the person wants. But for mercy’s sake: don’t try to force me to speak the way you want outside of a private conversation. In my speech, I will rely on logic and common sense, not on ‘singular they’.

Mediaterror and bots

The following example of restriction of freedom of speech is probably well known to all of you: the infamous censorship on Youtube, TikTok and other media sites in 2024 reaches the limit of absurdity. Under the pretext of protecting children (?), a harsh automod is activated on YouTube with a huge list of banwords based on the frequency of baking, inattentive bloggers who have omitted a prohibited word in their language risk sitting without monetization. The problem is aggravated by “cross-platformness”: bloggers from other platforms, which have their own censorship, drag bad substitutes for banwords to their neighbors, who have not yet banned those words. And it so happens that bloggers “from the future” appear on YouTube (or somewhere), they are ahead of events, disguising pseudo-banwords 😅

It’s sad that this newspeak gibberish has migrated to comments, text content, and Internet communication. Thanks to whom it “migrated” is a good question. I have two options, the culprits are: a) society trained by bloggers; b) bots. Bots are mostly to blame, I think. I can’t imagine that a real man, after watching a video on YouTube, then somewhere on Reddit wrote ‘unalive’ instead of “suicide” 🤦‍♂️ Now that bots have become cheap and relatively intelligent, it is profitable to use them to shape the customer’s desired public opinion, to normalize certain ideas through misinformation, controversy, and the Mandela effect, to downgrade human content and bring automatic into trends. The process of replacing people takes place not only in IRL at factories (which is good), but also in the infofield (which is bad). For a thorough understanding of the problem, google ‘dead internet theory’.

The list of stop words includes “murder”, “suicide”, “rape”, “pedophilia”, “assault”, “war”, “terrorism”, etc. What can be achieved with such an action? The fact that it stifles freedom of speech: a fact. But does it level the phenomena whose names it forbids? Of course not! Let’s delete the word “war” from the dictionaries and wars will be a thing of the past!

Some enthusiastic bloggers are so passionate about this topic that they fall into some kind of psychosis, for example, Skeeter Jean removed from his vocabulary “pedophilia” and everything that he thought was connected with it, and even the numeral “thirteen” (maybe others), because it describes age in particular… at first I wanted to laugh, but then I cried.

Scanthropic trash

One minecrafter published on social media a screenshot of the game’s web cabinet, on which the system reported an error in the nickname: Flying_Racoon, such a nickname automod perceived as “offensive” for certain people and rejected it. It is clear that this is not about grammarnazi, the absence of one “s” is not an excuse. The problem is ‘coon’, it’s a slang insulting word for Negros, and I learned about it in the comments under that post 😃 which once again proves the pointlessness of such restrictions, they rather spread what they are fighting against. This incident is wider than it seems, it has a whole concept: “Scunthorpe problem”. But this method of censorship is wrong, and not only because of the attack on freedom of speech and privacy (perluster algorithms scan email correspondence as well), but also logically: you can’t separate the whole thing and draw a conclusion about the whole thing by its parts. When you break a watch, you have parts of the watch, but not the watch. This is stupid, like in case when you divide a word for searching a new “hidden” meaning of the whole word is deduced from the parts (butterfly: butter fly — “butter fly”; pineapple: pine apple — “pine apple”; cowboy: cow boy — “calf”; hotdog: hot dog — “Korean street food”). To fully understand this, read the article on Wikipedia, there are plenty of examples.

[

In conclusion we have the displacement of free communication and creativity beyond the visible Internet in the abyss of the deep-darkweb and in the “kitchen”: closed platforms.

Absolute freedom of speech

The constitution of any civilized country guarantees its citizens freedom of speech. In the famous First Amendment to the US constitution, this guarantee is provided unconditionally. But I want to note that on the Internet, where the situation is uncontrolled, here every owner of a site, server, chat is his own master with his own constitution. There is an impression that when you go to the Internet, you leave the country 😆 Why do local entities not obey the global law? Can the owner of, say, an IRL-club establish its own rules in which homicide is allowed? The country in which this club is located should not regulate this situation? Murder in a club where homicide is allowed by its rules: legal? No. Then why is cancellation in such an internet free speech club normal? This is abnormal and should be regulated at the level of the main law.

Freedom of speech should be absolute. Today it sounds like a utopia, in an anarchist way. But this is the right way.

Many people are afraid of such freedom, they are afraid of any infinity (I saw a docfilm where a scientist thought about numbers and suggested that they are not infinite… he wanted to believe that, that someday people will reach the last largest number, he was frightened by infinity), and this is due to a tendency to authoritarianism, such people need to have control over the situation in order to be calm, even if this situation does not concern them, they do not trust those around them, they are afraid that they will either screw them up or take away their power. Therefore, in principle, authoritarians cannot be trusted with power, they will use it selfishly: they will restrain everything that goes beyond their “comfort zone”, their rules, they will make a cage out of infinity.

Wars don’t start with calls to fight, or orders to fight, no, war starts with action: when a soldier picks up a machine gun and goes to fight. Of course, both the first and the second are guilty, but without the second, the first is powerless, his words are incapable of harming anyone, his words do not have a TNT equivalent, but he will undoubtedly answer to God for his words.

At this summer (2024) in England, a 28-year-old guy was sentenced to a real 3 years in a prison for a post on Twitter. In that post, he called for aggression in the streets, this against the background of the recent events with the triple murder. In russia, thousands of people have already been sentenced for posts, reposts and even likes, there, they are being tried, in particular, for pacifism, Christian rejection of violence (militarism).

All this censorship is powerless and ineffective, it only leads to resistance according to the law of physics about “action and counteraction”, it does not form in a person resistance to unworthy acts, because censorship itself is an unworthy act.

If a man speaks some gibberish, you can ignore him, there is a great “ignore” option on the Internet for this. You can issue warnings, express your displeasure with dislikes, There are many tools, ban is the last and unacceptable, like the death penalty. No matter what anyone says, the one who uses force illegally is always guilty. F. Herbert in “Messiah Dune” called “improper use of force” a fatal sin.

Why does the editorial office of, let’s say, a newspaper (media) disclaim responsibility for placing advertisements on its pages, or disclaim: “the opinion of the author may not coincide with the editorial opinion”, why do not social networks follow the same path? — don’t like someone’s tweet? OK! — just ignore it, there is a special option for this. “The opinion of contributors may not coincide with the policy of the platform”, this is not the problem of the platform, but of the contributor. Why are words equated with illegal content? If pirated movies are stored on someone’s server, that server will be asked to remove them, or they will try to close it completely, condemn its owners. The words are also stored on someone else’s server, but they are legal: freedom of speech is guaranteed! — then why are they being asked to remove it and sanctioned if they refuse to comply? This is a rhetorical question, because this is how tyranny manifests itself.

A cultured man will never offend another. A truly cultured man does not need rules, he already has them in himself, for him it is a self-important, self-evident thing. For a Christian, such a guide to ethics is Christianity. Jesus said that everyone will answer to Him on the last day for their words, so give this judgment to Him, but He commanded us: not to judge anyone.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.